[lamford]

---

BAM (point-a-board), lead 8♥, NS+2140

West on this hand was our friend from North London who has justly earned the sobriquet "SB". He is here in Pula at the easy-going bridge festival, and the TD has been to his table more than to all other tables put together. On this hand he asked, before he doubled 6NT, "Explain the auction, please." South, an Eastern European with broken English replied, "Normal. 2NT is 20-22 - can have six of colour. 6NT to play." "Is there anything else I need to know?" persisted SB. South gave him a withering look and replied "No".

Number Six: What do you want?
Number Two: Information.
Number Six: Whose side are you on?
Number Two: That would be telling. We want information… information… information.
Number Six: You won't get it.
Number Two: By hook or by crook, we will.

East led a heart, although SB thought of course that he should have led a spade, and declarer claimed when this was not ruffed. SB was still not happy. "You should have told me that you had the excellent agreement that you could transfer by one side after 6NT is doubled", he complained. "Director, please".

The TD arrived, and SB argued that his double was a "call based on misinformation". He had specifically asked if there was anything else he needed to know, as he played transfers after 6NTx himself, only by the opener of course. In addition to the score being rolled back to 6NT undoubled -1, which would be a push, he was looking for a PP against South for deliberately lying when he replied "No" to "Is there anything else I need to know?".

How do you rule?

[blackshoe]

DP to SB for accusing South of lying. Score stands. SB has no right to have possible future calls explained to him.

[ahydra]

Law 20F said:

He is entitled to know about calls actually
made, about relevant alternative calls available
that were not made, and about relevant inferences
from the choice of action where these are
matters of partnership understanding.

Seems pretty clear-cut (well, I guess technically I'm assuming "exception proves the rule"-type logic, but I think that's fair enough here). If SB wanted to know about possible continuations he should have explicitly asked about them or checked the CC.

ahydra

[aguahombre]

ahydra, on 2013-September-14, 16:18, said:

If SB wanted to know about possible continuations he should have explicitly asked about them or checked the CC.

Which South should not answer.

[nige1]

lamford, on 2013-September-14, 09:45, said:

BAM (point-a-board), lead 8♥, NS+2140
West on this hand was our friend from North London who has justly earned the sobriquet "SB". He is here in Pula at the easy-going bridge festival, and the TD has been to his table more than to all other tables put together. On this hand he asked, before he doubled 6NT, "Explain the auction, please." South, an Eastern European with broken English replied, "Normal. 2NT is 20-22 - can have six of colour. 6NT to play." "Is there anything else I need to know?" persisted SB. South gave him a withering look and replied "No".

Number Six: What do you want?
Number Two: Information.
Number Six: Whose side are you on?
Number Two: That would be telling. We want information… information… information.
Number Six: You won't get it.
Number Two: By hook or by crook, we will.

East led a heart, although SB thought of course that he should have led a spade, and declarer claimed when this was not ruffed. SB was still not happy. "You should have told me that you had the excellent agreement that you could transfer by one side after 6NT is doubled", he complained. "Director, please".

The TD arrived, and SB argued that his double was a "call based on misinformation". He had specifically asked if there was anything else he needed to know, as he played transfers after 6NTx himself, only by the opener of course. In addition to the score being rolled back to 6NT undoubled -1, which would be a push, he was looking for a PP against South for deliberately lying when he replied "No" to "Is there anything else I need to know?".
How do you rule?

---

blackshoe, on 2013-September-14, 10:33, said:

DP to SB for accusing South of lying. Score stands. SB has no right to have possible future calls explained to him.

SB is right that he needs to know the meaning of possible future calls, so he doesn't deserve a DP. Blackshoe seems correct, however, that the law deprives SB of that vital information unless it is on his opponent's SC. And it appears from another thread that opponents may omit such exceptional detail from their SC. Perhaps, rule-makers deserve a PP?

[aguahombre]

What you mean is that SB would like to know whether his opponents are prepared for some eventuality in a situation where the auction has already ended most of the time.

I see no reason to change the Laws so he can receive such information; nor, from the thread some time ago, do I see any reason for a player contemplating a risky overcall to find out in advance whether the opponents can double for penalty.

The silliness of the convention itself or, without such, North just running out to 7D himself is that if the double is based on two Aces rather than an AK they get to go down two instead of one.

West in the given case with AK ran the risk of North pulling to 7m whether the opponents had a tool or not. He doesn't get a freebee from the Laws.

[blackshoe]

nige1, on 2013-September-14, 21:47, said:

SB is right that he needs to know the meaning of possible future calls, so he doesn't deserve a DP.

Whether SB is correct that he needs to know these things is not the point. You do not accuse other players of lying. SB did so. That is what the DP is for.

[pran]

I am not sure everybody will agree but in my opinion the description of a conventional call (just made) includes descriptions of the future calls that are part of this convention.

Simple example: As part of the description of 4NT (some kind of BW) LHO may request (and receive) information on the direct responses to this 4NT bid that are expected depending on responder's key cards.

And to make that clear: I do not think this extends to information on how the responses will be changed as the result of a possible intervening call (e.g. double) by LHO.

[lamford]

aguahombre, on 2013-September-14, 22:15, said:

The silliness of the convention itself or, without such, North just running out to 7D himself is that if the double is based on two Aces rather than an AK they get to go down two instead of one.

The convention would not be employed unless it had a reasonable chance of success, and I think it is wrong to describe a gadget created by a Spring Fours (a top British event) winner as silly. It is obviously better to play transfers by the opener. The silliness would be not including that rescue club in your bag and only having 13 clubs.

Failing to include the convention on the CC was the reason that SB had to ask. I think that the ability of opener to transfer if 6NT is doubled is "a relevant inference from the choice of action where these are matters of partnership understanding," and therefore should be disclosed. In my opinion, "No" was not full disclosure in response to the question, "Is there anything else I need to know?" West can only have been thinking of doubling, and South knew that he had the gadget available, and, that he was quite likely to use it if his partner did not gamble 7D. So, yes, South did lie. Whether he is permitted to lie under the Laws is not clear. And, interestingly, after 2NT-6NT, assuming they have 32-33 highs, the doubler is about three times as likely to have an AK combination as two aces.

[aguahombre]

Despite Mr. Lamford's contentions ---

1) I believe with 20-22 opposite 11 the assumption is a total of 31-33 which might change the possibities on whether two aces are missing, vs an AK.

2) I don't believe that because some tool was created by a person you idolize, that is an argument whether it is a good idea.

3) I know the SB or anyone else should not be able to "risk-free" an action he is contemplating by forcing the opposition to tell him whether they have a way of coping with it.

4) What the SB considers something he "needs to know" is not what he gets to know, and wording the question in that manner doesn't change South's obligation regarding the disclosure in this case.

5) What SB gets to know is about alternatives the opponents might have had available to them enroute to 6NT after a 2NT opening; we can't make something up which isn't part of the disclosure requirements just because we want more information.

An opponent might feel he needs to know about the future in other situations.

1N-2C...if he doubles with some questionable club holding can it be sent back for minus 1920.

1N (?)..if he makes a nuisance overcall, will double be penalty?

Good luck on trying to change the laws to eliminate the risks of your questionable decisions.

[Vampyr]

nige1, on 2013-September-14, 21:47, said:

SB is right that he needs to know the meaning of possible future calls, so he doesn't deserve a DP. Blackshoe seems correct, however, that the law deprives SB of that vital information unless it is on his opponent's SC. And it appears from another thread that opponents may omit such exceptional detail from their SC. Perhaps, rule-makers deserve a PP?

Yes, I will never ever understand this interpretation that penalises players who have more thoroughly-completed convention cards. Furthermore, you could have obtained the relevant information had you happened to ask the right question before you had taken cards from the board.

I think that this principle is the very opposite of full disclosure. Could the lawmakers really have been incompetent enough to intend this?

[gnasher]

Vampyr, on 2013-September-15, 12:31, said:

Could the lawmakers really have been incompetent enough to intend this?

Probably not. But they may have been either misguided enough to intend it, or incompetent enough to include it in the rules unintentionally.

[lamford]

aguahombre, on 2013-September-15, 06:59, said:

1) I believe with 20-22 opposite 11 the assumption is a total of 31-33 which might change the possibities on whether two aces are missing, vs an AK.

Not really; with 9 points they can have AKJJ or AKQ compared with AAJ. There are more combinations with AK than with AA however many points they hold. Of course most of the time they have neither AA nor AK of a suit, which is why 6NT is not usually doubled.

aguahombre, on 2013-September-15, 06:59, said:

2) I don't believe that because some tool was created by a person you idolize, that is an argument whether it is a good idea.

I have only met the person in question twice, but enough to regard his opinion that it is a good idea as superior to your idea that it is silly, particularly as you have not submitted a single argument to support its silliness.

aguahombre, on 2013-September-15, 06:59, said:

3) I know the SB or anyone else should not be able to "risk-free" an action he is contemplating by forcing the opposition to tell him whether they have a way of coping with it.

4) What the SB considers something he "needs to know" is not what he gets to know, and wording the question in that manner doesn't change South's obligation regarding the disclosure in this case.

5) What SB gets to know is about alternatives the opponents might have had available to them enroute to 6NT after a 2NT opening; we can't make something up which isn't part of the disclosure requirements just because we want more information.

I agree with (3). But not (4) or (5). I am arguing that everyone is entitled to a complete explanation of the opponent's methods, however barking the Laws are. If people started to refuse to answer because the information related to a future call, I bet the average TD would ignore the relevant section of the Laws and tell the player he had to answer.

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2013-September-16, 11:24, said:

I am arguing that everyone is entitled to a complete explanation of the opponent's methods, however barking the Laws are. If people started to refuse to answer because the information related to a future call, I bet the average TD would ignore the relevant section of the Laws and tell the player he had to answer.

You may be right about what the average TD would do, but that makes neither him nor you right. Players are entitled to know what the laws say they are entitled to know, even if you, or the average TD, or anyone else, think the law is "barking". For a TD to rule that a player is entitled to information to which the laws do not say he is entitled is worse than folly, for the TD is required to rule in accordance with the law. If he does not, he should be fired forthwith.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2013-September-16, 11:57, said:

You may be right about what the average TD would do, but that makes neither him nor you right. Players are entitled to know what the laws say they are entitled to know, even if you, or the average TD, or anyone else, think the law is "barking". For a TD to rule that a player is entitled to information to which the laws do not say he is entitled is worse than folly, for the TD is required to rule in accordance with the law. If he does not, he should be fired forthwith.

I agree entirely, and I was not saying that the TD would be right, just that he would have my sympathy. As would a TD who decides that one of the many bugs in the Laws is just a drafting error.

[blackshoe]

If it were a drafting error, surely after five years it would have come to light and been corrected. If not, well, how does that thing of Burn's go? Oh, yeah: "we hang for what they wrote".

[barmar]

I think the problem is that the Laws are inconsistent about what the opponents are entitled to know.

Law 20 says that you can ask for explanations of calls made, alternatives, and inferences from the choice. This clearly precludes asking about potential future calls, you can only ask questions about the past.

But Law 40 says that the opponents must make their partnership understandings available to the opponents before they commence to play, and the opponents may consult this information at specific times during the auction and play (which happen to include the times when players may request explanations according to Law 20).

The latter information is obviously not limited only to past calls, so it doesn't seem like the Lawmakers could have intended that you're not allowed to know the opponents's methods well enough to predict what they might do in some situations. Nor does Law 40 say that this information should only be general summary information, or just the most common situations, as is common in filling out system cards.

Does it make sense that L40 could require disclosing information ahead of time, but you're not allowed to get that same information when requesting an explanation of the auction? Either the opponents are entitled to the information or they're not. This is presumably why directors often rule as mentioned above: L40 seems to express the spirit of "full disclosure" that we're all familiar with: the opponents are entitied to know what you know about your partnership's methods.

[blackshoe]

Quote

Law 40A1{b}: Each partnership has a duty to make available its partnership understandings to opponents before commencing play against them. The Regulating Authority specifies the manner in which this shall be done.

In practice all Regulating Authorities, as far as I know, specify that this is done via the System Card or as the ACBL still calls it, the Convention Card.

Quote

ACBL General Conditions of Contest, item 5 under "Conventions and Convention Cards": Each member of a partnership MUST have a completely filled out convention card available for the opponents.
• Both cards of a partnership must be identical and include the first and last names of each member of the partnership.
• If a Director determines that neither player has a substantially completed card, the partnership may only play the ACBL Standard American Yellow Card (SAYC) and may only use standard carding. This restriction may only be lifted at the beginning of a subsequent round after Convention Cards have been properly prepared and approved by the Director. Further, the partnership will receive a 1/6 Board Match Point Penalty for each Board played, commencing with the next round and continuing until the restriction is lifted. In IMP team games penalties shall be at the discretion of the Director.
• If the Director determines the partnership has at least one substantially completed Convention Card but has not fully complied with ACBL regulations, then the director may give warnings or, if the deficiency is not corrected in a timely manner given the circumstances, assign such penalties as he deems to be appropriate.

Nothing in this regulation defines what a "completely filled out convention card" must contain. There is on the ACBL website a section titled "How to Complete Your Convention Card". I suppose we could refer to that. Not sure how much help it would be.

Note that this has to do with prior disclosure. It seems pretty clear to me that if you want to get a sense of what the future auction might look like after an opponent makes (or does not make, for that matter) a particular call, you're supposed to do so before the first board of the round. This makes things interesting if your "need to know" is predicated on a hand you haven't seen yet, and a partial auction you haven't heard.

Re: "need to know": folks seem to be taking it as a given that "need to know" wrt future calls may exist. I'm not convinced.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2013-September-16, 14:37, said:

I think the problem is that the Laws are inconsistent about what the opponents are entitled to know.

Law 20 says that you can ask for explanations of calls made, alternatives, and inferences from the choice. This clearly precludes asking about potential future calls, you can only ask questions about the past.

But Law 40 says that the opponents must make their partnership understandings available to the opponents before they commence to play, and the opponents may consult this information at specific times during the auction and play (which happen to include the times when players may request explanations according to Law 20).

The latter information is obviously not limited only to past calls, so it doesn't seem like the Lawmakers could have intended that you're not allowed to know the opponents's methods well enough to predict what they might do in some situations. Nor does Law 40 say that this information should only be general summary information, or just the most common situations, as is common in filling out system cards.

Does it make sense that L40 could require disclosing information ahead of time, but you're not allowed to get that same information when requesting an explanation of the auction? Either the opponents are entitled to the information or they're not. This is presumably why directors often rule as mentioned above: L40 seems to express the spirit of "full disclosure" that we're all familiar with: the opponents are entitied to know what you know about your partnership's methods.

A very good summary, and I think that when the Laws contradict themselves, even if only in spirit, the principle of full disclosure should apply. One could get round this by obliging any player to answer any questions about their agreements at any time. Not about the bids not yet made, but about their agreements.

[pran]

lamford, on 2013-September-16, 17:13, said:

A very good summary, and I think that when the Laws contradict themselves, even if only in spirit, the principle of full disclosure should apply. One could get round this by obliging any player to answer any questions about their agreements at any time. Not about the bids not yet made, but about their agreements.

Be careful or you will soon meet a SB requesting a full rehearsal of your agreements on any possible (future) situation in the current aution up to your agreements on bidding slams should that become relevant. "He might certainly need that information when planning his own calls".